My Comparative Politics textbook asks, "Why is it good to have minorities in the legislature?" I ask, "Why does this text state implicitly that it is good at all to have minorities in the legislature?"
OMG! WTF! Call the thought police! We have a racist in the vicinity!
Whoa, hold your horses there, Mr. Social Justice Advocate. If you allow for an open discussion on this concept of race (which you claim to be what you want, even as you subvert everyone who disagrees with you by labeling them a "racist") you would see that I am not a racist. Indeed, I am the opposite. As I will shortly demonstrate, it is you who border the tenets of racism, not me.
Proponents of "racial justice,” a subcategory of “social justice,” are prone to numerous fallacies. The first of them is the idea that the coercive apparatus of the state must be used to institutionalize racial distinctions through law—thus justifying the claims of racists and racialists that “races” as we know them are fundamentally different and thus deserving of unequal treatment under the law. Worse still, racial quotas and other results of state intervention in the race-distinction business tramples the property rights of employers, violating their natural rights to employ whoever the hell they want to.
[rant]I don't care if they choose to employ a fucking monkey, a job is the property of its creator, and as such he can do whatever the hell he wants with it.[/rant]
Such laws also transform "minorities" into walking lawsuits, thus making them unappealing for employers and creating unemployment amongst their ranks. This is amusing in a perverse sort of way, because it leaves the ignorant racial distinctionists who believe that the state is the solution to all social ills scratching their heads and concluding that capitalism must be at fault.
The free market provides natural incentives against arbitrary discrimination (defined here as being based upon something other than job performance). If employer A, being racist, forgoes hiring a productive white employee in favor of a less productive black employee, employer A will lose the additional profit that it would have otherwise acquired if it had an equitable employment policy. Employer B, being run by greedy capitalists who discriminate solely in favor of green, hire the more productive white employee. Ceteris paribus, employer A will be less competitive and have lower profit (or higher losses).
When the government provides legal protections to certain groups, members of said groups cease to be viewed by employers as valuable contributors and transform into black holes of litigation not worth the risk. Laws that aim at protecting groups from discrimination make it in a business-owners rational self-interest to discriminate against members of said group (the opposite of free-market incentives).
One mind-numbingly stupid proposition put forth in the text is that political parties should offer voters the choice of a black and a white candidate. There was also a nostalgic reminiscence over the good ol’ days in the Soviet Union when quotas were in place. Such laughable ideas reinforce what racists have been trying to tell us all along—that the various “races” are fundamentally different.
But what of my promise to demonstrate the connection between racism and advocates of so-called "racial justice?"
Both share the same basic philosophical underpinnings of collectivism, a philosophy that judges people based upon what groups they have membership in rather than in their capacity as individuals. Groupism is irrational and must be destroyed if we are to truly enter the much-lauded "post-racial" society. If this is to happen, we must repeal groupist laws such as racial quotas and affirmative action which serve only to justify groupist philosophy by having the state recognize it as legitimate (which it is not).
In truth, races are nothing more than social constructions based upon phenotypic observations and stereotypes. Rational people should dismiss such factors when determining what who to hire or associate with. Society cannot truly progress past the primitive idea of “race” until the government quits making distinctions between “races.” As far as I am concerned, there is only one race: the human race. And coercion is NEVER an acceptable solution to a social ill.
Racism is a sin of the heart. It cannot be legislated away at the whim of those in possession of legalized violence (or “elected officials” as they are sometimes referred to).
Makes sense to me.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
I would consider racism as a subcategory of statism. An irrational outgrowth of an irrational "philosophy".
free paradigm || youtube
Joe: I would consider racism as a subcategory of statism. An irrational outgrowth of an irrational "philosophy".
Why are you so sure that racism is specifically oriented by statism? I consider it a side effect of statism, this is to say that without the state these racial divisions would not have arisen, but as it is why are you so certain that all racist philosophies would die in the event of statelessness. Certain racist beliefs claim to have certain scientific backing (I have been told that race is somewhat correlated to intelligence but I have not checked to see the validity of this) but assuming that is is true then this gives them a backing with which to perpetuate themselves. We're stuck with race for along time now although race in and of itself is a collectivist abomination and a blight upon the human spirit.
One of the things that I would enjoy the most if a stateless society would appear tomorrow is watching the self victimizing sections of the African American population have to deal with a concept that there's no state to save them from the tyranny of the "evil white man", and on the other side I would be ecstatic to watch the white nationalists seclude themselves off in certain areas to get them the hell away from the decent section of the population.
And also it needs to be said, bi racial women are gorgeous
Theoretically, the libertarian racist is a possibility so long as he practices his racism peacefully. However, most racists I am aware of have attempted to use the power of the state to institutionalize racism.
The Late Andrew Ryan:but as it is why are you so certain that all racist philosophies would die in the event of statelessness.
The Late Andrew Ryan:Certain racist beliefs claim to have certain scientific backing (I have been told that race is somewhat correlated to intelligence but I have not checked to see the validity of this) but assuming that is is true then this gives them a backing with which to perpetuate themselves
I think you're taking issue more with the language of the question than anything else.
It is worded in a social justice leaning way though, no doubt about it. A more fair question, imo, would be "does it really matter if the people being elected are minorities or not as long as the voters are reasonably satisfied with their choice?" or something like that.
The Late Andrew Ryan: And also it needs to be said, bi racial women are gorgeous
QFT
And it's not just women. My female friends tell me the same is true of men.
Snowflake: The Late Andrew Ryan:but as it is why are you so certain that all racist philosophies would die in the event of statelessness. As far as i know, the government doesn't tell you who you can and can't marry, yet less than 3% of all marriages are interracial.
I know. While I dissaprove (the more bi racial marriage and general integration the better) the fact is that
1. People are, for the most part, I believe, more physically attracted to their own race by and large.
2. The vast majority of people are racist on more than just a base level (it is impossible not to be at least slightly racist unless you are literally blind but this shouldn't matter) so inter racial relationships are less likely on that level as well
3. Single racial relationships have a traditional way of perpetuating themselves in a sort of traditional manner.
4. People in the same racial group (especially African American) tend to be in closer proximity to each other and therefore its a simple numbers game which, when combined with all of the following, makes the whole thing far more difficult.
I would be very interested to know how much the idea of children affects many people's conception of race relationships, for instance out of all the inter racial couples that I currently know all are black males marrying white females and out of all of the children you literally could not tell from just looking that half of their genetic buildup was caucasian. I'd be interested to know if this had any effect upon the psychology of some women and a large majority of men or not... Just a musing.
Indeed Ive been quite interested to talk to these people about their relationship but I've always felt that they would get the wrong impression.
Snowflake: The Late Andrew Ryan:Certain racist beliefs claim to have certain scientific backing (I have been told that race is somewhat correlated to intelligence but I have not checked to see the validity of this) but assuming that is is true then this gives them a backing with which to perpetuate themselves wiki race and intelligence is actually kind of shocking. Like, you would think that there's maybe a 3 IQ pt difference between whites and blacks... its actually more like 20 IQ pts.
Yea I've heard figures like that before... However I absolutly fail to care in any significant way other than exactly how it perpetuates the beliefs of racist groups. I question I like to ask is if they advocate making sure that stupid white people and smart white people don't breed.
Theres my two cents. Be interested to know what you think.
Also, I think the words "racist" and "prejudiced" and "biased" and "bigoted" are all often used interchangeably thus making the word "racist" a blanket term for just about any positive or negative reaction relating to ethnicity or race.
When the words cease to have meaning, conversations about the concepts becomes difficult.
bloomj31: I think you're taking issue more with the language of the question than anything else. It is worded in a social justice leaning way though, no doubt about it. A more fair question, imo, would be "does it really matter if the people being elected are minorities or not as long as the voters are reasonably satisfied with their choice?" or something like that.
More generally, I'm taking issue with the NAACP types who actually advocate segregationist policies that exacerbate "racial tensions."
Perhaps that's the idea. Creates more problems for state authorities and leftist academia to solve.
Aquila: More generally, I'm taking issue with the NAACP types who actually advocate segregationist policies that exacerbate "racial tensions."
No question in my mind that they perpetuate the very problems they claim to want to solve.
bloomj31: Also, I think the words "racist" and "prejudiced" and "biased" and "bigoted" are all often used interchangeably thus making the word "racist" a blanket term for just about any positive or negative reaction relating to ethnicity or race. When the words cease to have meaning, conversations about the concepts becomes difficult.
Very true.
This is why I defined arbitrary discrimination on the part of an employer as being based upon something other than job performance. Prejudice is pretty self-explanatory--it is pre-judging. One can be prejudiced against anything, not just race. The same is true of many other such terms.
I should say that statism feeds racism unnecessarily. I want to see how racism would fare in a free society. I think it would mostly die off or be relegated to obscurity, like people who believe the Earth is alive and stuff like that.
I would know, I'm dating one (yes!) ;)
The Late Andrew Ryan: 1. People are, for the most part, I believe, more physically attracted to their own race by and large. 2. The vast majority of people are racist on more than just a base level (it is impossible not to be at least slightly racist unless you are literally blind but this shouldn't matter) so inter racial relationships are less likely on that level as well 3. Single racial relationships have a traditional way of perpetuating themselves in a sort of traditional manner. 4. People in the same racial group (especially African American) tend to be in closer proximity to each other and therefore its a simple numbers game which, when combined with all of the following, makes the whole thing far more difficult.
The Late Andrew Ryan: I currently know all are black males marrying white females and out of all of the children you literally could not tell from just looking that half of their genetic buildup was caucasian
The Late Andrew Ryan:Indeed Ive been quite interested to talk to these people about their relationship but I've always felt that they would get the wrong impression.
The Late Andrew Ryan:Yea I've heard figures like that before... However I absolutly fail to care in any significant way other than exactly how it perpetuates the beliefs of racist groups. I question I like to ask is if they advocate making sure that stupid white people and smart white people don't breed.
Snowflake: So this racial preference in mates could transfer over to racial preference in economic association. There are market incentives against this, but between ceteris parabis applicants to a job, you could choose on the basis of something arbitrary. Though its been pointed out that min wage laws make this worse.
So this racial preference in mates could transfer over to racial preference in economic association. There are market incentives against this, but between ceteris parabis applicants to a job, you could choose on the basis of something arbitrary. Though its been pointed out that min wage laws make this worse.
I doubt it. To some extent with racial supremicists and white nationalists and the like. But quite frankly let's suppose that you aren't attracted to women with black skin, are you really not going to sell things to these people? And I don't really think its going to matter for hiring people. For some it might a little bit but for the vast majority of people I don't think that they'll care.
Snowflake: Actually most black people have white blood in them... I think its only recently that interracial breeding (not marriage) has really died down.
That's a one sided coin for the most part and I don't really think that it was ever all that common.
Snowflake:It really bugs me that Hispanics think they have this birth-right to Mexican culture... I mean my ancestors danced around a fire and painted themselves and wore stupid clothing. But everyone would think i was totally high if I celebrated my ancient German heritage. They wouldn't be wrong, its just, you should think that everyone else who does that with their ancestors' culture is high too :P
I remember my father a while ago telling me about a story when he was in school and they had this women who was like 1/16th Cherokee come in and totally unrecognizable for anything but pure Caucasian come in and talk to him about her "her people" and the culture of the Cherokee.. And she had the whole head dress and everything. I find culture to be idiotic anyway, you should choose how you act not simply imitate your parents.
Snowflake: Well, we're genetically 99% similar to apes and look at the int difference. A priori there's no reason to expect different genetic strands of humans to have much in common intellectually.
Yes, but they don't. I see little actual difference between my Caucasian and Negro friends.... Besides some stupid ideas brought about by racism. And indeed as you said there has been "enough" interbreeding for a decent amount of similarities, especially with African Americans.
Joe: I should say that statism feeds racism unnecessarily. I want to see how racism would fare in a free society. I think it would mostly die off or be relegated to obscurity, like people who believe the Earth is alive and stuff like that.
Tru dat!
Joe: The Late Andrew Ryan: And also it needs to be said, bi racial women are gorgeous I would know, I'm dating one (yes!) ;)
I've had my eye on one for a while.... nothing so far but wish me luck ;)
Lol. Racism is simple human biological and cultural atavism. It existed before the State, and will probably exist after it. Now, states (especially democratic totalitarian states) do tend to aggravate 'racial' tensions. But this is just goofy.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
Aquila: Joe: I would consider racism as a subcategory of statism. An irrational outgrowth of an irrational "philosophy". Theoretically, the libertarian racist is a possibility so long as he practices his racism peacefully. However, most racists I am aware of have attempted to use the power of the state to institutionalize racism.
It's impossible for a libertarian to be racist.
Sorry, they're all just statist memes to me.
Aquila:In truth, races are nothing more than social constructions based upon phenotypic observations and stereotypes. Rational people should dismiss such factors when determining what who to hire or associate with. Society cannot truly progress past the primitive idea of “race” until the government quits making distinctions between “races.” As far as I am concerned, there is only one race: the human race. And coercion is NEVER an acceptable solution to a social ill.
Yup. I always wondered why there wasn't a race of big eared people, or why don't we have a race for only blue-eyed people? A race for red haired folk? A race for short, tall, fat, skinny, strong, and weak? A set of gene's set your skin color, your eye color, your physical nature in general. Why the arbitrary assignment to skin color?
At some point people will learn that there is only the individual. This black brown blue green crap is stupid.
The Late Andrew Ryan:But quite frankly let's suppose that you aren't attracted to women with black skin, are you really not going to sell things to these people? And I don't really think its going to matter for hiring people. For some it might a little bit but for the vast majority of people I don't think that they'll care.
The Late Andrew Ryan:Yes, but they don't. I see little actual difference between my Caucasian and Negro friends.... Besides some stupid ideas brought about by racism. And indeed as you said there has been "enough" interbreeding for a decent amount of similarities, especially with African Americans.
The Late Andrew Ryan:That's a one sided coin for the most part and I don't really think that it was ever all that common.
Let the liberals debate that.
Gipper: It's impossible for a libertarian to be racist.
Why?
Race is just a genetic clustering. Human beings inherit their genetics from their parents and reproductive success is not independent of the environment, especially climate. Distinct traits are bound to develop among different groups depending on their geographical location.
Race is obviously more than just a social construct. It is very much a realist classification of individuals. Also, since the frequencies of some characteristics of individuals from different racial groups occur more frequently than for other racial groups, it is possible to use race as a probabilistic causal factor when making judgments about individuals.
The very thing commonly referred to as racial prejudice is actually empirical racial postjudice. IMO, racial discrimination is perfectly rational and reasonable. No other racial group than whites have any qualms about it. And in my experience, most non-whites hold whites in contempt for it (and rightly so).
BTW:
I liked your point about the anti-racists having to discriminate between races to be able to tell if a racist is doing so. Performative contradiction anyone?
Also, I think you need to clearly define what you mean by racist. The term used to be shorthand for racial supremacist. There are two tenets to this doctrine.
Nowadays, it seems to just refers to the first tenet.
What about the issues of classism and culturalism?
Aquila:In truth, races are nothing more than social constructions based upon phenotypic observations and stereotypes.
I can’t agree with this particular sentence. I believe stereotypes have been formed, just like common law and language, by a freely functioning society, and have not been imposed top-down. They serve a purpose as they tend, on average to be truer than a mental carte blanche. Hence, when people stereotype Jews as being “cheap”, what they mean is that, if you act on the belief that a Jew is cheap (ex. try not to bargain to long on wages), you will gain more often than you will loose, in the long run, if the rule is consistently applied, as opposed to assuming nothing ex ante about the guy,.
Stereotypes have not been created to cast everyone in the same category, but to give a general idea and minimize the time needed (and the costs incurred) to really know someone. Stereotypes change in time, if they no longer hold true (an example would be first-generation emigrants being supplanted by second and third generation ones).
So, I really don’t see how we could say that in a free market the tendency is to assume everyone is a carte blanche: people will act, on stereotypes, to minimize the time needed to know their employee. I believe this to be true of races, as of any other group one could conceive of.
I'm not exactly sure what 'classism' and 'culturalism' are.
I'll just say that 'social stratification' in general is entirely natural and desirable. Some individuals will tend to be more productive and accumulate more wealth than others. They will in turn have more children and pass on these productive traits to them.
I see nothing wrong with making judgments about people based on their background if I know nothing else about them.
My overall point is that a very very small number of people believe in the superiority of a particular race, i.e. that there are very few people who fit the strict definition of racist. There are a lot more people who make judgments based upon preconceived notions based on class and culture than on race. Most racism in the US isn't racism strictly speaking.
My challenge to this is that you can't be sure whether or not someone's judgment is a preconception or a post-conception, a prejudice or a postjudice.
edit: How do you know whether or not someone's attitudes towards members of one race is based entirely on ignorance or upon past experience with members of that race? It seems to me that you are just assuming that all instances of racial judgments are the former and that none are the latter.
BTW, I'm one of the ppl who thinks that there is an unequal distribution of traits such as intelligence, athletic ability, immunity to certain diseases, ect. between the races. So in some respects, some races are superior to others. Ditto for cultures and classes.
CrazyCoot: My overall point is that a very very small number of people believe in the superiority of a particular race, i.e. that there are very few people who fit the strict definition of racist. There are a lot more people who make judgments based upon preconceived notions based on class and culture than on race. Most racism in the US isn't racism strictly speaking.
This is basically what I was thinking too. The word "racism" has come to mean not just racism proper (violence, racial supremacy), but also prejudice, discrimination (even non-violent discrimination) and bias.
Also, @ Stephen, I think that before we start throwing the word "superior" around we should probably define it. Not because I don't get what you're saying but because the words "superior" and "race" in a sentence can become irrationally inflammatory very quickly if one isn't careful. Just saying.
bloomj31:Also, @ Stephen, I think that before we start throwing the word "superior" around we should probably define it. Not because I don't get what you're saying but because the words "superior" and "race" in a sentence can become irrationally inflammatory very quickly if one isn't careful. Just saying.
You're right.
For example, Chinese on average have a higher level of natural intelligence than whites or jews. That is not to say that every member of the population does, but overall as an aggregate they do. In terms of intelligence, they are superior. Blacks are overall more naturally athletic than whites. In terms of athleticism, they are superior.
I see what Stephen is getting at, and he does have a point. I think this Mises Daily article reinforces what he is saying:
http://mises.org/daily/3545
"For example, Chinese on average have a higher level of natural intelligence than whites or jews."
Where's your proof?
And how do you scientifically quantify intelligence? Is that kind of like computing an average of disparate ordinal subjective valuations? Something like Keynesianism?
Assuming IQ measures intelligence, what is the IQ of the computer that defeated Gary Kasparov? Who is smarter, two people with IQ's of 80 and 120, or two people with IQ's of 100? What does it even mean for a group to be "smarter"?
How do you average two quotients x/y and z/w? Do you use arithmetic average, or geometric average? Or something else? If your mom has a BMI of 40, and a midget has a BMI of 20, are they on average as fat as a bodybuilder with BMI 30?
And do you mean the Chinese living in China or those living only in USA? If jew is also white, is he excluded from your statement? What if someone is 99% white, but 1% Chinese, will genetic testing scientifically be able to exclude them from the sampling? Or will you compare them against paint chips to tell? How do you measure the intelligence of someone like Helen Keller?
"In terms of intelligence, they are superior."
In terms of intelligence, who is superior, von Mises, Einstein, or Obama? If Obama lacked the intelligence of the jews, how come he became president?
What is "natural" intelligence? Are you saying if you locked a Chinese and white kid in a closet, and let them out 20 years later, the Chinese one would be smarter? Do you have empirical evidence?
Tell me, are there any statistics on how much each race subscribes to loads of pseudoscientific bullocks?
baxter: "For example, Chinese on average have a higher level of natural intelligence than whites or jews." Where's your proof?
I'm by and large going off of this gentleman's work. I'm no expert myself.
baxter:And how do you scientifically quantify intelligence? Is that kind of like computing an average of disparate ordinal subjective valuations? Something like Keynesianism?
Basically like this.
baxter:Assuming IQ measures intelligence, what is the IQ of the computer that defeated Gary Kasparov? Who is smarter, two people with IQ's of 80 and 120, or two people with IQ's of 100? What does it even mean for a group to be "smarter"?
Both groups have the same average. A computer doesn't have an IQ.
baxter:How do you average two quotients x/y and z/w? Do you use arithmetic average, or geometric average? Or something else? If your mom has a BMI of 40, and a midget has a BMI of 20, are they on average as fat as a bodybuilder with BMI 30?
All that can be said is that they have the same average BMI. On average both groups are equally fat.
baxter:In terms of intelligence, who is superior, von Mises, Einstein, or Obama?
Mises, then Einstein, and then far behind them, Obama.
baxter:If Obama lacked the intelligence of the jews, how come he became president?
He has good advisors, tremendous oratorical ability, and he's black which is fashionable in our politically correct age.
baxter:What is "natural" intelligence? Are you saying if you locked a Chinese and white kid in a closet, and let them out 20 years later, the Chinese one would be smarter?
He probably would be.
baxter:Do you have empirical evidence?
Here
baxter:Tell me, are there any statistics on how much each race subscribes to loads of pseudoscientific bullocks?
That's not even worthy of a response.
>>And how do you scientifically quantify intelligence?
>Basically like this.
Per your own link,
"IQ tests are only one imperfect method of measuring certain aspects of intellectual ability. A lot of critics point out that IQ tests don't measure creativity, social skills, wisdom, acquired abilities or a host of other things we consider to be aspects of intelligence"
And if you can quantify intelligence numerically and unscientifically, then why not also use cardinal values to describe subjective preferences? I guess we should just make up numbers for everything. Let's go wild with econometrics and Keyensianism.
What units are IQ in anyway? Utils per second? Kiloutils per year? OK, I admit IQ is dimensionless by definition, but in computing it one must use quantities in some kind of units. Also, since the IQ definition is dependent on time (it is defined to be 100 for the average intelligence, right now), I don't see how one can scientifically compare IQ's from different time periods even for the same person.
Why must the correct average of 80 IQ and 120 IQ be 100? The average length of a 1-foot rod and a 2-foot rod is 1.5 feet. But the average volume of a 1-foot-sided cube and a 2-foot-sided cube is not equal to the volume of a 1.5-foot-sided cube. What are the units of knowledge or units involved in IQ and why must they vary linearly, and not cubically as with my volume example? IQ need not even vary under a power law but could have a much more complicated dependence on fundamental factors.
To glibly perform incorrect calculations with synthesized quantities is unforgivable when the quantities involved have an objective basis in physics. To do the same thing in the "soft" sciences is puerile.
Two lengths can be averaged without much argument. But if two people kick an object, what kind of kick would equal the average of the two? Should I average the velocity of their feet? The momentum? Kinetic energy? The average of the electrical impulses of their motor neurons? It's entirely a matter of opinon what the "average" would be. How in the world do you average two minds?
Stephen: . Blacks are overall more naturally athletic than whites. In terms of athleticism, they are superior.
. Blacks are overall more naturally athletic than whites. In terms of athleticism, they are superior.
I'd say this has a lot to do with actually engaging in a lot more physical activity than whites. Like you know how people say "yeah black people are naturally gifted at things like basketball"- but ignore the hours and hours and hours of time spent practicing the game since they were young as if it doesn't mean anything.
>Blacks are overall more naturally athletic than whites. In terms of athleticism, they are superior.
Yet there are some sports where they do not seem to thrive. The statement is clearly a matter of opinion and not of science. Atheletic and intellectual ability cannot be scientifically measured. How do you even measure a person who might far exceed the average in athleticism, yet simply chooses not to exercise such abilities.
Stephen: For example, Chinese on average have a higher level of natural intelligence than whites or jews.
For example, Chinese on average have a higher level of natural intelligence than whites or jews.
What if we compared 19th century Chinese and 19th century whites?
The Late Andrew Ryan:And also it needs to be said, bi racial women are gorgeous
Not if it includes black.
@ baxter
It is imperfect. It is an indirect measure. It measures an individuals ability to perform abstract mental tasks with speed and accuracy. It measures effect and not cause.
And you're right. It's an art, not an exact science. With that said, it seems to be highly objective given that it is a powerful predictor of income.